NYT: It's Dangerous Outside, Somebody Do Something!

[bravo22b]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27stroll.html

August 26, 2010
Aw, Wilderness!
By TED STROLL

San Jose, Calif.

ONE day in early 1970, a cross-country skier got lost along the 46-mile Kekekabic Trail, which winds through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota. Unable to make his way out, he died of exposure.

In response, the Forest Service installed markers along the trail. But when, years later, it became time to replace them, the agency refused, claiming that the 1964 Wilderness Act banned signage in the nation’s wilderness areas.

Despite the millions of people who have visited the country’s national parks, forests and wildernesses this summer, the Forest Service has become increasingly strict in its enforcement of the Wilderness Act. The result may be more pristine lands, but the agency’s zealous enforcement has also heightened safety risks and limited access to America’s wilderness areas.

Over the last 45 years Congress has designated as wilderness 40 percent of the land in our national parks and one-third of the land in our national forests — more than 170,000 square miles, an area nearly as large as California, Massachusetts and New Jersey combined — as wilderness. In March 2009, President Obama signed a law protecting 3,125 more square miles, the largest expansion in more than a generation.

Wilderness, according to the act, is space “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Within those areas, the act forbids cars, roads, structures and anything else that could impair the “outstanding opportunities for solitude.”

At the same time, though, Congress wanted people to use the land for recreation, so it allowed access to wilderness areas for hunting, hiking, canoeing and climbing.

Over the decades an obvious contradiction has emerged between preservation and access. As the Forest Service, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management — each of which claims jurisdiction over different wilderness areas — adopted stricter interpretations of the act, they forbade signs, baby strollers, certain climbing tools and carts that hunters use to carry game.

As a result, the agencies have made these supposedly open recreational areas inaccessible and even dangerous, putting themselves in opposition to healthy and environmentally sound human-powered activities, the very thing Congress intended the Wilderness Act to promote.

Part of the problem is that many of today’s common outdoor activities were unheard of in 1964, including trail cycling and wind-powered skiing. In forbidding them, the agencies invoke the Wilderness Act’s ban on “mechanical transport.” But the act’s legislative history makes clear that Congress never intended to stop people from using their own power to travel or shepherd their children, or from using light mechanical assistance that leaves no lasting trace.

The agencies have even taken on Capitol Hill: in 1980 Congress authorized bicycling in Montana’s Rattlesnake Wilderness, but the Forest Service refused to allow it.

The official resistance to wilderness signage, in particular, has become a safety issue. Every summer numerous backpackers, hikers and hunters get lost in the wilderness, with occasionally fatal results. In 2008, two experienced hikers along the Kekekabic Trail — the same Minnesota trail where the skier perished in 1970 — were lost for days and nearly ran out of food. The Forest Service listened to their complaints about the lack of signage but refused to act.

In response to the agencies’ inflexibility, groups of outdoor enthusiasts have lined up against any expansion of wilderness areas — an unfortunate result, because these people should be the natural constituents of a wilderness protection program.

The Wilderness Act is a monumental achievement in national resource conservation. But unless federal agencies begin to interpret it more reasonably, it is an achievement that even fewer numbers of people will want, or even be able, to enjoy.

Ted Stroll is an attorney.

News Flash: If you go into the wilderness unprepared, and do something stupid, you may very well die. Clearly this is the government's fault for not putting the proper signs in place in the middle of the woods so you can find your way out.

Maybe Ted Stroll, the attorney, should sue somebody! This must be somebody's fault... maybe Mother Nature is negligent in some way.

Unbelievable that this could even be an issue.

[Pete]

I'm torn on the issue.

Sure, I think the Earth First type people are using the Wilderness Act to try and shut down wilderness areas. Marked trails & paths that allow bikes and strollers? Come on, why not?

But then again maybe a one over the world map with a compass is all that's needed? I'm not even talking about a high cost ($169????) GPS system. Dude, you walked North/East away from your car and the road. Walk south for a while and you'll hit the main east/west road or turn west after a while and hit the trail you drove in on or your own tracks.

They do call it a Wilderness for a reason.

[Peregrino]

I'm not torn in the least. If the Earth First idiots want to see a century's worth of conservation efforts and public awareness dissappear overnight all they have to do is restrict access to the wilderness. People don't care about what they can't see. What infuriates me most is the changing attitudes within the agencies charged with preserving the resource. "Ranger Rick" used to be a positive role model. I'm afraid there aren't many of him left to shephard the next generations through their learning experiences as they develop an appreciation for the outdoors. Nothing good will come from creating obstacles that prevent access/interaction.

[Rumblyguts]

Wish the late Col. M. was here for this one...

Regarding signage: yep its dangerous out there, it's the useers responsibility accept for hidden ultra dangerous things (always liked those Jimmy signs at Yellowstone where he breaks through the crust).

REgarding access. The wilderness areas are funded by taxes, therefore everyone should have access. But does that mean that everyone can use it the way they want? No. Roads are public, yet they have weight limits.

Parks were established for preservation, yet they have millions of people through them each year. National forests were inteded to be used more heavily and are open to mechanical rec. Wilderness arears are meant to stay wilderness, without much damage from humans. I see them as being much more restrictive, more like a slice that won't get changed by humans except for study, so I'm OK with extreme restriction.

Stroll seems to be pro-bike. One can hike the area, and therefore still have access - no bike needed. Strollers? I'm confused on that one as well, unless the idea moves into truck portage thinking or trial width at points. Of course, there are kiddy backpacks, but I've also taken many wheelchairs to the BWCA.

I also question his picking on the Kekekabic. It's not a widely know trail. Especially for someone from CA, who is also described as an adventurer. The BWCA really isn't for adventure.

Trapline, have you been on it?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Rumblyguts

... Strollers? I'm confused on that one as well, unless the idea moves into truck portage thinking or trial width at points.......

The Strollers they are talking about would be the three wheel version with small bike tires. Great for jogging or off pavement use. You can carry your packpack with supplies and pack the baby's on the stroller.

Don't leave much more of a track than shoes.

Not the ones you see around the mall.

[bravo22b]

Well, maybe I misinterpreted the Op-Ed. What I got out of it on my first and second read through was that Ted Stroll thinks that it is government's responsibility to make sure that people don't get hurt in the wilderness. I think that's BS, and I also think there is a big difference between a National Park and a wilderness area. I think there is every expectation that a National Park should have good signage and accessibility to as many people as feasible.

The national wilderness areas are meant to be just that, and from the Wilderness Act of 1964:

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no
commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except
as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act
(including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area),
there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing
of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

Personally, I think it's pretty clear, and I agree with it. These are meant to areas where people with the skills to safely navigate them can go and be as far away from human contact and development as possible. There are plenty of areas where people can go with mountain bikes, strollers, and whatever else they have, and plenty of places where there are clearly marked trails for the average American to experience the outdoors.

All that being said, I'm not in favor of people in general using these areas to further their agendas. I certainly don't agree with anyone who wants to block access to these areas.

Like anything else, the rules should be enforced by the relevant agencies without favor.

[Penn]

Why would anyone take a stroller, implying a toddler, into a wilderness area. Humans aren't the hunter gathers they once were.

"Honey, lets walk this trail in Danila, we can bring the kids; What? Oh, we'll bring a whistle..."

[Rumblyguts]

Originally Posted by Penn

Why would anyone take a stroller, implying a toddler, into a wilderness area. Humans aren't the hunter gathers they once were.

"Honey, lets walk this trail in Danila, we can bring the kids; What? Oh, we'll bring a whistle..."

I've seen families with wee ones up in the BWCA, but that's more for canoe camping (aquatic car camping)

[TrapLine]

Originally Posted by Rumblyguts

I also question his picking on the Kekekabic. It's not a widely know trail. Especially for someone from CA, who is also described as an adventurer. The BWCA really isn't for adventure.

Trapline, have you been on it?

My apologies for the late response. I was staying at our hunting/fishing shack just west of the BWCA, near Voyageurs N.P., which is outside of the cellular network.

I have not been on the Kekekabic, but I have made several trips into the BWCA. IMO, the wilderness can be a very unforgiving place, and the BWCA is certainly that. Its appeal is in its raw natural state, and not suited for the unguided person who is not experienced in the field. There are plenty of drive-up camp sites for novices to experience a taste of Mother Nature without becoming lunch for one of her smarter children.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Rumblyguts

I've seen families with wee ones up in the BWCA, but that's more for canoe camping (aquatic car camping)

Do you car camp out of a Yugo? My son carried less on his 100+ mile paddle/portage in BWCA this summer than he does on a standard backpacking trip.

[Rumblyguts]

Hmm, my wording may have been off. I didn't mean to infer that BWCA canoe camping equaled car camping. It definitly can in places (the Number Lakes come to mind) while in other places you'll sink.

My view of canoe camping is probably skewed. Most of my canoe time was done guiding groups that went in heavy due to incredibly varied ability and comfort levels. We'd hit the BWCA with 3 gal of propane, a coleman 2-burner, and a small cooler + food pack for a 5-day trip.

I'm ok with fewer people in the mountains and deserts. For those who want access, then lets break trail and provide access for those in wheelchairs, BSA on camping trips, etc. Most turn back within 2 miles of trailheads anyway.

Wilderness is rough country with bear shit on the ground full of pepper pray and gingle-bells.

Some say, "Wilderness = Land of no use", of course timber is still a precious commodity that could be used to create economies and provide some with jobs, and the remoteness allows me to make liquor without too many revenuers looking about.

I bet if an Islamic Center for Prayer or camp was built 20 miles back, no one would care.

[Buffalobob]

The official resistance to wilderness signage, in particular, has become a safety issue. Every summer numerous backpackers, hikers and hunters get lost in the wilderness, with occasionally fatal results. In 2008, two experienced hikers along the Kekekabic Trail — the same Minnesota trail where the skier perished in 1970 — were lost for days and nearly ran out of food. The Forest Service listened to their complaints about the lack of signage but refused to act.

If you can't make it with a map and compass or GPS then perhaps you need a tamer type forest such as your local state park or municipal picnic area.

Some activities carry risks and if you want your 15 year old daughter to sail around the world alone you either pay a bond for the rescue effort or else she should be allowed to die for her incompetence, stupidity or just bad luck. Same goes for this guy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...html?tag=stack


Same attitude applies to me out elk hunting alone. If I step in a hole and break my leg and a bear eats me then that's just the way it went and the elk win one for a change.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

If you can't make it with a map and compass or GPS then perhaps you need a tamer type forest such as your local state park or municipal picnic area.

Some activities carry risks and if you want your 15 year old daughter to sail around the world alone you either pay a bond for the rescue effort or else she should be allowed to die for her incompetence, stupidity or just bad luck. Same goes for this guy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...html?tag=stack


Same attitude applies to me out elk hunting alone. If I step in a hole and break my leg and a bear eats me then that's just the way it went and the elk win one for a change.

Bob, I am 100% with you on this one.

Darwin should be allowed to work in the wilderness.

TR